1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8615 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Vancouver Centennial Celebration Act (Bill 64). Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Introduction and first reading –– 8615

Oral Questions

Small business bankruptcies. Mr. Lea –– 8615

Mr. Barrett

Emergency budget. Mr. Leggatt –– 8617

Wildlife Act (Bill 55). Report. (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

Third reading –– 8617

Petroleum And Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 56). Report.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

Third reading –– 8617

Employment Development Act (Bill 26). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

section 4 –– 8617

Supply Act (No –– 2), 1982 (Bill 57). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 8619

Supply Act (No. 2), 1982 (Bill 57). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8619

Mr. Stupich –– 8619

Mr. Lea –– 8621

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 8624

Mr. Lauk –– 8627

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 8630

Mr. Skelly –– 8632

Mr. Leggatt –– 8634

Mr. Levi –– 8637

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 62). Hon. Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading –– 8638

WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker,

unfortunately most of us don't see much of our wives these days, so I'm

very pleased to have my wife Lillian visiting with us today. With her

is a very dear and long-time friend, Mrs. Loma Bakker, and her grandson

Tony Williams. Visiting with them from Northern Ireland for a number of

weeks and getting to know Canada, particularly British Columbia, is a

young fellow named Tony Jones. I would ask everybody to welcome them.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I have some guests visiting in the gallery today from the

riding of Shuswap-Revelstoke. I would like the House to join me in

welcoming Mr. and Mrs. Elmo Wolfe and their grandaughter, Miss Wendy

Holland.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm sure all members have

heard the sad news today of the death of Mrs. Shirley Owen, the wife of

our former Lieutenant-Governor, who was well known and revered in this

province. Mrs. Owen served along with her husband in that capacity for

a number of years, representing this province. I would ask, Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of the members, if you could extend our condolences

and and best wishes to the family.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that the wish of the House? So ordered.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, there are a great number of us in this chamber who had the

very great privilege of serving under Lieutenant-Governor Owen and

Shirley Owen. We ask people to take on an onerous task by serving in

these very important positions. We have lost both of the Owens in the

past 18 months and it is a deep loss for all British Columbians. My own

experience with them was that they were the kind of British Columbians

who help to make us unique, distinctive and thoughtful in terms of

contributing to Canada. I'm sure all British Columbians and all

Canadians will mourn her passing today.

MR. RITCHIE:

I would ask the House to join me in extending a warm welcome to two

very good friends, Dr. and Mrs. Jack Loughlin. The Loughlins are closer

friends since the marriage of their daughter and our son just a little

over a week ago. With them is Mrs. Joyce Smith and Miss Joy Hosie of

Dundee, Scotland.

MR. HOWARD: Visiting Victoria and

in the precincts today is Mrs. Lee Ellis, who is an alderman in the

municipality of Kitimat and chairman of the Regional District of

Kitimat-Stikine. I ask the House to welcome Mrs. Ellis.

MRS. WALLACE:

I have two friends visiting from Chemainus, the little town that could.

I would like the House to welcome Betty Neff and Isabel Hussey.

Introduction of Bills

VANCOUVER CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour he Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Vancouver Centennial Celebration Act.

Bill

64 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed with oral questions, I have reviewed the Blues

of yesterday's proceedings in oral question period. Upon reading the

question of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), indeed the

question is specific and not general, as I heard it. The rulings which

the Speaker made were made on the basis of how the question was heard —

in a somewhat raucous chamber, I might add. Nonetheless, I heard the

question as general and made my decisions on that basis. I owe the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds an apology, and I would like to extend that

and only wish that the member were here today.

I've had

further representations — both here in the chamber and privately —

regarding question period, and despite he fact that a rather lengthy

discourse was given last week on he subject, some apprehension still

does exist. I don't think that it is so much in regard to the question

period itself or its formulation, but there is some misunderstanding as

to how the procedure is applied.

In order to make that

clear, may I just say this. Not all questions can be asked without a

short

preamble in order for the question to be intelligible. So I will

accept a one-sentence

preamble, and that should then no longer

necessitate calls from one side of the House for "question, question,

question!" I think that will take some of the abrasiveness out of

question period.

Further, when a minister is giving an

answer to a question and he has gone beyond the scope of the question,

and when he Speaker calls for order, sometimes apparently the call for

order is seen as a general call for order because of the noise in he

room, when essentially it is a call for the minister to come to order.

I will try to help the members in that regard: having called for order,

if there isn't immediate compliance, I will stand, which will be a

clear indication to the minister that his response must terminate

immediately. Would that assist us some, hon. members?

Oral Questions

SMALL BUSINESS BANKRUPTCIES

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Finance. On two

previous occasions I've asked the government about the problem of

business failures and bankruptcies in British Columbia. Spokespeople

for the government have said that the government is looking into the

situation. In view of a report from the provincial companies branch

that business receiverships are up 429 percent in the first six months

of his year over last year, has the government decided to take definite

action to protect our rapidly disappearing business community from

foreclosures by the banks?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Hearing the member very clearly say, "Has the government decided to take action?" I have to say no.

[ Page 8616 ]

MR. LEA:

What percentage of increase over last year has the government decided

would have to take place before the government would take some definite

action?

HON. MR. CURTIS: That is a speculative question, surely. I don't know how I can assist the member in a hypothetical situation such as that.

MR. LEA:

Statistics released by the federal department of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs show that British Columbia has the worst record in Canada of

bankruptcies this year. The increase in British Columbia was 64 percent

in the first five months of this year over the same period last year —

the highest in Canada. In view of this dismal performance, will the

minister explain why he has refused to offer any new assistance to the

British Columbia small business community, where they are facing the

worst crisis ever in our history?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I

think that in a number of instances in the course of this session since

we commenced on April 5, and starting on that date, we indicated a

number of initiatives which had been taken by the government prior to

the introduction of the start of the legislative session and since. One

very significant aspect of the initiatives taken by this government was

clearly enunciated in the budget, and that was the decision not to

significantly increase taxes across the board. That alone was a major

policy decision on the part of this government. I submit that if taxes

had been increased, as has been the case in a number of other

provinces, then the situation in British Columbia would be far more

serious than it is today.

MR. LEA: In answer to

questions in the House last week, the Minister of Finance admitted that

all the economic indicators have changed since the tabling of the

provincial budget in the House. Also, this government is on record in

their 1978 policy statement of favouring the federal monetarism

policies that have led us into this crisis stage.

MR. SPEAKER: I must now ask for the question.

MR. LEA:

Has the government now decided to move away from what they described in

their 1978 paper as "gradual monetarism," brought in by the Bank of

Canada and the federal government in 1975? Has the government now

decided that monetarism is not the answer? Because it has been shown

not to work but to lead us into economic crisis, would the minister now

tell us whether the government has decided to bring in a new budget

that would take into consideration the new economic indicators and the

failure of monetarism that they've endorsed?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Without endorsing every statement contained in that rather lengthy

question by the hon. member for Prince Rupert, I have to point out that

I've been asked on several occasions in recent weeks if it is the

government's intention to bring in a new budget. I say again that today

I have no intention of preparing or presenting a new budget within this

fiscal year.

I also point out that the budget was predicated

on continuing difficulties through the course of the year. While there

has been some slippage, that will be fully accounted for in the series

of quarterly reports, the first of which for this fiscal year will be

available, as I've indicated to other members, in the course of the

last few days of July or the first few days of August.

MR. BARRETT:

I'm pleased to learn from the Minister of Finance that there have been

no increases in taxes to small businesses. Can the minister suggest to

the small businessmen in Vancouver and the lower mainland who have

received tremendous tax increases ranging from as low as 100 percent to

as high as 350 percent that those tax notices have been erroneously

sent out and that he will immediately cancel those increases as they

were not authorized, especially related to his particular statement

today?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of

the Opposition knows in asking the question that it is not easy to

simply roll back property taxes in the course of a year which, in the

case of property taxation, started on January 1, not April 1, as is the

case with the provincial budget.

If I might take a few

minutes in response, because the question is an important one, I might

also point out that a number of us have served as mayors or aldermen in

British Columbia municipalities. We have been involved — and our

associates are now involved — in the budget-making process, the

decision-making process at the council table. I don't think this

government or any other government at the provincial level should

permit itself to take full responsibility for the increase in property

taxes.

My comment in answer to the first or second question

from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) dealt with provincial

taxes, which are imposed by the provincial government — or are not

imposed, as the case may be.

MR. BARRETT: Since

property taxes are based on the formula created by this Legislature,

which the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) admits

he doesn't understand, will the minister take steps to inform the banks

that any pressure from small businesses to get more money...or inform

the municipalities that any delay in paying small business taxes is

caused by some confusion about the minister's statement that the year

begins on January 1, not April 1? Will you make some effort to protect

small businesses in Vancouver and the lower mainland that are going

bankrupt waiting for some help?

MR. SPEAKER: Order,

please. The question asks about future activity. Perhaps if the

question were rephrased to ask if the decision has been made, the

minister might accept that question.

MR. BARRETT: I'll rephrase it, Mr. Speaker. Is there any hope for these people at all?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Yes, I'm sure there is hope. In asking the question, the member knows

full well that much of the decision with respect to budgets at the

local government level is not made in this chamber; it is made at the

council chamber table. The member knows that. Showmanship is not what

we need in this House at this time.

MR. BARRETT: Is

it correct that assessments and the formula related to assessments are

done here in Victoria by the provincial assessment commission,

instructed by the provincial government? The answer is yes.

[ Page 8617 ]

Will

the minister take any steps to instruct that a freeze be put on all

property tax increases created by the assessment formula, created by

this government, and that it be immediately implemented with only a 10

percent increase, to allow some businesses to at least survive? If that

is drama, then let us have some drama to save these people before they

go bankrupt.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is in order if it is: have any steps been taken?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I understood the question to relate more to the

possibility of future government policy. But the member knows full well

— and I have to point this out again for the House — that assessments

are one portion of the total equation which finally results in a

property tax bill. The member knows that when asking the question. He

knows that the council of a city, a district municipality or a town

sets the mill rate at the local level. It is not good enough to suggest

otherwise in his question in this chamber.

MR. BARRETT:

The first answer from the minister was that it was all the

municipalities' fault. The second answer was that it was partly

assessment. My third question is: can the part that is caused by

assessments please be corrected by this government immediately so the

small businesses that are now threatened with bankruptcy can be saved

by direct action by this government through some form of grant or

freeze?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think that question clearly asks about the possibility of future government policy.

EMERGENCY BUDGET

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, in

answer to a question of mine, the minister advised the House — I think

I'm quoting accurately — that "more British Columbians are employed now

than ever before." B.C. labour force statistics from the Ministry of

Labour show that in May 1982, 1,205,000 British Columbians were

employed, compared with 1,255,000 in May 1981. That's a drop of 50,000

jobs in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: I must now ask for the question.

MR. LEGGATT:

In light of the fact that the minister clearly, based upon statistics

from his own government, does not understand that we've lost 50,000

jobs, not gained 50,000, will he now reconsider the answer he gave

yesterday? Has he now decided to bring in an emergency budget — a

job-creating budget — so we can get back to work in the province of

British Columbia?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I certainly had no

intention of misleading any member of this House when citing figures

yesterday. I was using figures which were made available to me as the

question was being asked. I will have to take the question, in terms of

the numbers which the member has cited, as notice. Therefore I will

take that question as notice and consult with my colleagues in

government with respect to the precise numbers which have been quoted

on both sides of this House.

MR. LEGGATT: A

cornerstone of the philosophy of this government has been that to

create jobs, you create a favourable investor climate. That has been a

hallmark of this government. The Employers Council of B.C.'s business

trend survey of June 1982...

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you've exceeded the one-sentence limit.

MR. LEGGATT:

...discloses lower investor confidence in this province than at any

time in the past. Given the Employers Council's warning to this

government, given 50,000 fewer jobs, given 179,000 people on

unemployment insurance, bring in a new budget, and let's get to work.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, when seeking the floor in question period, it is better

to have a question formulated. Today we disappointed another member who

did have a question.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 55, Mr. Speaker.

WILDLIFE ACT

Bill 55 read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 56, Mr. Speaker.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Bill 56 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 26.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 26; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I move an amendment to

section 4 by deleting "$132.9 million for the

purposes referred to in

section 3" and substituting "$132.9 million for

the purposes referred to in

section 3, the amount to include the sum of

$26,975,000 appropriated under

section l(

b) of Supply Act (No. 1),

1982, and the sum of $17,983,333 appropriated under

section 1(

b) of

Supply Act (No. 2), 1982.

The amendment which I have

introduced at this point replaces that which is on the order paper, and

represents no variation at all from the intent of the original

amendment on the order paper, but rather, recognizes the fact that

there will be a second Supply Act. That is precisely the total of the

situation with respect to the amendment which is now before the

committee.

[ Page 8618 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved,

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

26, Employment Development Act, reported complete with amendment to be

considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I move that, in addition to the amount authorized under Supply Act (No.

1), 1982, from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be

paid and applied in the manner and at the times the government may

determine: (

a) the sum of $1,428,891,858 towards defraying the charges

and expenses of the public service of the province not otherwise

provided for for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, and being

substantially one-sixth of the total amount of the votes of the main

estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, as laid before the

Legislative Assembly at the present session; and (

b) the sum of

$17,983,333, being substantially one-sixth of the total amount required

for the purposes referred to in

section (

b) of

schedule B of the main

estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution and asks leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Now, Mr. Speaker. I move that the report of resolution from the

Committee of Supply on July 7, 1982, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

The resolution is that in addition to the amount authorized under

Supply Act (No. 1), 1982, from and out of the consolidated revenue fund

there may be paid and applied in the manner and at the times the

government may determine (

a) the sum of $1,428,891,858 towards

defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the

province not otherwise provided for for the fiscal year ending March

31, 1983, and being substantially one-sixth of the total amount of the

votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983,

as laid before the Legislative Assembly at the present session; and (

b) the sum of $17,983,333, being substantially one-sixth of the total

amount required for the purposes referred to in

section (

b) of

schedule

B of the main estimates for the fiscal year, ending March 31, 1983.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

At the next sitting. Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave

the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I move that in addition to the amount authorized under

Supply Act (No. 1), 1982, from and out of the consolidated revenue fund

there may be paid and applied in the manner and at the times the

government may determine (

a) the sum of $1,428,891,858 towards

defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the

province not otherwise provided for for the fiscal year ending March

31, 1983, and being substantially one-sixth of the total amount of the

votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983,

as laid before the Legislative Assembly at the present session; and (

b) the sum of $17,983,333, being substantially one-sixth of the total

amount required for the purposes referred to in

section (

b) of

schedule

B of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution and asks leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Now, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of resolution

from the Committee of Ways and Means on July 7, 1982, be now taken as

read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

In addition to the amount authorized under Supply Act (No. 1), 1982,

from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and

applied in the

[ Page 8619 ]

manner

and at the times the government may determined (

a) the sum of

$1,428,891,858 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public

service of the province not otherwise provided for for the fiscal year

ending March 31, 1983, and being substantially one-sixth of the total

amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 1983, as laid before the Legislative Assembly at the present

session; and (

b) the sum of $17,983,333, being substantially one-sixth

of the total amount required for the purposes referred to in

section

(

b) of

schedule B of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 1983.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee meet again?

HON. MR. CURTIS: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 2), 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS: I present Bill 57, intituled Supply Act (No. 2), 1982.

MR. SPEAKER: So that each member may have his copy, the bill will be distributed at this time.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 57 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee on Bill 57; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report, recommending the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports, recommending the introduction of the bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second

time.

Mr. Speaker, as the House will know, this is the second Supply Act for the

fiscal year 1982-83, the first having been introduced on April 8, when the Legislative

Assembly authorized the value of expenditure for three months. Therefore, on

June 30 last, we reached the conclusion of the time portion of the interim supply.

Members will also know from my remarks last year, and probably at the time of

Supply Act (No. 1), 1982, that under the Financial Administration Act there

is the capability now to continue payments beyond the particular point in time,

but only for a very few days.

Therefore

it is not only appropriate but indeed essential if we wish the

government to continue to function, and the people of the province of

British Columbia to receive assistance and a variety of services in an

orderly manner, that interim supply for a further two months be

approved. In consultations with one or two other members of the

Legislative Assembly, I opted for the one-sixth interim supply which is

before the House at this time.

MR. STUPICH: The

opposition certainly recognizes the importance of granting the

government interim supply and will support the legislation introduced

today — not, however, with with any degree of enthusiasm.

First,

I'd like to express a bit of concern. In my remarks at the time the

budget was first introduced, I suggested that the figures in the budget

were not attainable — as presented, the revenues would not be attained,

and expenditures would not be controlled within the figures presented

to us at that time. We raised some very serious questions about the

figures in the budget. We did approve interim supply at that time. I'm

not suggesting that the economy has changed all that much in the

interim, but certainly our awareness of the seriousness of the economic

picture has changed. We have learned a lot more about how serious

things are.

I would have hoped that the Minister of Finance

would have taken this opportunity to be a bit more candid with the

Legislature and the people of the province and told us something about

current conditions in the province, compared to what they were when he

presented his budget. I recognize that the first quarterly statement

will be out in about two or three weeks. But I also believe that the

Minister of Finance knows a good deal more about the economic

conditions of the province at this time than he has revealed to date. I

think it would have been proper for him to have said more about that

when he introduced interim supply today.

The government

introduced a budget preaching restraint. It then went on to exhibit no

restraint at all when it came to extracting more funds from the people

of the province. A lot has been said about that, and more will be said

about it. I don't intend to say very much at this time. But I will

refer briefly to a press release a couple of days ago from the Minister

of Finance — at least, I received it a couple of days ago; it was dated

June 29. Talking about restraint, the indexed tax feature, clear

gasoline increased 6.1 percent for the quarter, which means an annual

increase in the government levy of 24.5 percent. The annual increase in

the annual rate of government levy — the government extracting funds

from taxpayers — on aviation fuel, marked gasoline, marked bunker fuel,

and marked propane and butane is 44 percent. That's not restraint. The

increase for the quarter in marked gasoline and diesel for farmers and

fishermen who hold permits under the Gasoline (Colored) Tax Act is 15.7

percent, which works out to an annual increase of 63 percent. Mr.

Speaker, that's restraint? There's no restraint when it comes to

levying increased taxes on taxpayers, but there's restraint when it

talks about what other people should do. There's restraint when it

tells municipalities what they should do.

In answer to a

question today, the Minister of Finance suggested that most of what's

happening in municipalities is a result of decisions made in chambers

other than this one —

[ Page 8620 ]

decisions

made in council chambers. Mr. Speaker, you know that councils have very

little authority over what's happening within their boundaries. Even

when the councils in some municipalities decided by a unanimous vote to

put a question on a ballot — at minimum expense, a few hundred dollars,

perhaps, in some cases — the provincial government moved in with a

heavy hand and said: "You can't do that." The government exercises

almost complete authority over what the municipalities spend and the

taxes they levy. The Minister of Finance knows that. Decisions are made

in the executive chamber, in cabinet rooms, not in the municipal

chambers. There's very little freedom for municipalities to act. When

it comes to levying taxes on small businesses, industry and, indeed,

even on residential owners, the percentages of the appraised value of

properties were decided not in the municipal chambers but in the

cabinet room here in Victoria. These are the kinds of things that are

happening.

They preach restraint and then levy tax increases

as high as 68 percent, as in one instance which I quoted from the press

release of the Minister of Finance. But when it comes to imposing

restraint, they impose that restraint on municipalities. They told them

exactly by how much their total budgets could increase; they told them

exactly where they could get that money; and they told them exactly

where they could spend that money. Within the parameters of all that

advice, the municipalities can do as they will. They have very little

freedom when it comes to acting within their own budgets. As a

consequence, unemployment, which has been described as British

Columbia's greatest growth industry, is growing even faster.

my own constituency 400 civic workers will be laid off because of a

restraint program imposed by this government on the municipality of

Nanaimo. Without freedom to do what they want locally.... The

government has imposed restrictions that have obliged the municipality

of Nanaimo to lay off 400 people. Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of

restraint they practise. They make other organizations impose restraint

on their employees and create further unemployment. They impose

restraint in the field of health. A lot has been said about that, and a

lot more will be said about it. Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I want to read

from a letter that I received a couple of days ago.

am the victim of cancer, having had bilateral mastectomies as of 1979.

At the present time I have developed cataracts in both eyes, as

diagnosed by my general practitioner and confirmed by an eye

specialist. This has curtailed my few pleasures, such as reading,

driving my automobile and playing organ music, as I am unable to see

sufficiently well to do those activities. My doctor has advised me that

I am looking forward to a probable wait of up to one year before this

cataract operation can be performed, due to the long list of people

awaiting elective surgery. Both my doctor and my eye doctor have

bluntly pointed out that with the spread of cancer in my body my life

expectancy is short. It seems a cruel trick of fate that my remaining

time must be spent with progressively failing eyesight and the

inability to enjoy my small pleasures.

"In the

light of my medical history and the gloomy picture of my limited

future, I appeal to you to intervene on my behalf and make this

cataract surgery available to me as quickly as possible."

Mr.

Speaker, restraint is imposed in this instance. The Nanaimo Hospital,

because of the restraint imposed by this government, is obliged to shut

down hospital beds so that there is waiting list in Nanaimo of 1,350.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please hon. member The scope of the debate on granting of supply

is somewhat limited. I would just caution the hon. member that although

he's making references to several areas in a general way, a

full-fledged debate on any of those subjects would only be in order

during the estimates themselves.

MR. STUPICH: I

appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I intend to deal only briefly with

several headings. As I said, we will support interim supply. We

recognize the need for the government to have the money to pay for

these things. We question the things that they are paying for; we

question the fact that some of these amounts are being spent on

programs that should not be supported, and the government is holding

back in other areas. We question what they've done in education — in

particular the fact that courses where there are special needs are

being cut back. We are seriously concerned about that. We recognize

that we have to support interim supply, but we don't like what the

government is doing, and we wish that the Minister of Finance had taken

advantage of this opportunity to give us more detail about just how

serious things are.

We're concerned about the unemployment

situation. We recognize that this bill has some impact on that. We're

concerned that the government has cut back on the silviculture program,

on the reforestation program — on all the work that could be done in

the forests to build for the future. That, too, has been cut back

seriously. For that reason, we are concerned about giving this

government the authority to spend any more money, because we're

satisfied that they will not spend it wisely.

We're

concerned that they're not doing more in the province to build up

tourist facilities. Certainly tourism, which has been the third

industry in the province this year, will likely be the first, we hope.

More should be done to make it more of a province that welcomes

tourists, because at least that industry is growing and has prospects

of growing more. That we can do something about. We recognize there are

limits beyond which the provincial government can't go, but certainly

it can do more to build within the province on the assets that are

already here. One of the things it could be doing is promoting more in

the way of tourist facilities.

We're concerned at the

cutback in the highway program. Mr. Speaker, we need roads — and I see

there's some support for this on the other side of the House — at a

time when our own people are unemployed and we have the equipment here.

We have everything we need to build these roads. We have the needs and

we have the unemployed. This is the time when we should be doing more.

It's false economy to cut back on employment-generating opportunities

here in the province when unemployment is as high as it is.

should be doing more about health care. We should be doing more about

what we're not doing in the forests. We should be doing more to cut

down waste in some areas. Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about that,

and a good deal more will be said about it.

At this time in

our economic life, to be cutting back on these employment-creating

opportunities in the province as a whole at the same time as we are

increasing the amount

[ Page 8621 ]

available

to cabinet ministers for furniture.... They all say: "We're using the

furniture you supplied." Mr. Speaker, if they're using the furniture

that was acquired when we were in office, why are they spending so much

on new furniture? The figures are far in excess of anything we ever

spent, yet they keep throwing back to us: "I'm using your desk." Mr.

Speaker, if they're using the desk that I had when I was in office,

they needn't be spending any more money for furniture, I can assure you.

Mr.

Speaker, is it necessary that we spend more money on non-productive

travel at this time in our economic history when there are so many

things that we could be doing with that money in the province? There is

a good deal of waste, we've argued, and we will continue those

arguments when we're in estimates. There are opportunities to spend

money that would create jobs, and they're not being taken advantage Of.

For

these reasons, while we support interim supply, we do not support

giving this particular administration the authority to spend any money.

We don't trust them to spend it on behalf of the people of the province

of British Columbia. Nevertheless, they are the government in office

today. On behalf of the people of the province, we hope that they will

not be there much longer, but as long as they are the government in

office, we feel duty-bound to support the programs, some of which are

good. To support those programs, we will support interim supply, but

not without having taken advantage of this opportunity to criticize the

Minister of Finance for not levelling more with us today, and not

without some of my colleagues taking advantage of the opportunity to

express some of their concerns about how this money is going to be

spent.

MR. LEA: As my colleague for Nanaimo has said,

we will be supporting this piece of legislation, but I think we would

be remiss if we supported it without making some of our concerns known

to the Legislature and to the people of B.C. It is an opportunity for

us as legislators to discuss the state of the finances in this province

and to take a look at where we have been, where we are and possibly in

what direction we should go.

Mr. Speaker, we are in economic

crisis, not only in British Columbia but in Canada, and not only

throughout the western world but throughout the world. I think we have

to review where we have been. Up until the New Deal of Mr. Roosevelt we

were pretty satisfied in our western democracies and western economies

to go along with monetarism as the means of governing our finances and

our economics. Along with Mr. Keynes and Mr. Roosevelt we got a new

practice of using fiscal policy by governments to manage the economy.

The Keynesian fiscal policies that worked during the Depression,

because of low prices and low interest rates, will not work today. It

has been tried, and it will not work. We have been using a mixture of

monetarism and Keynesian policy since the middle 1930s or the late

1930s in our western economics.

I suppose we can reflect and

look back at the fifties and the sixties and say that they worked

comparatively well. At least they seemed to be working. But beginning

with the seventies, things began to fall apart. At that point somebody

came on stage from the past, Mr. Monetarism, who said: "Let's do away

with the Keynesian part of our economic policies now and just deal with

monetarism." I think it is important to bring this up because in

also are going to be going along with the monetarist theory."

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. The member knows that I am very interested

in what he is saying, but under the limitations of the scope of debate

under a supply act.... I know he is making a passing remark and not

entering a full-fledged debate on the economics or economics. Please

proceed.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, maybe you could help me by telling me what confinements we are under.

MR. SPEAKER:

The scope of debate under the supply act has to do with the pros and

cons of providing interim supply. It is not an opportunity to debate

again that debate which was made during estimates. The reason for that

restriction is so that the House is not subjected to the same debate on

the same question twice in one session.

I am sure the member is aware of it and will proceed.

MR. LEA: I don't intend to make the same debate, Mr. Speaker, because

so much is new and changed since we made that debate during the budget, but I

think we have to examine the way we arrived where we are today.

The

government of British Columbia fell into lock-step with the general

consensus that was going on among many conservatives a few short years

ago, and that was that monetarism was the answer. In 1978 this

provincial government said to the federal government that the policy of

monetarism decided by the Bank of Canada and the Canadian government

was the correct one. It was so stated and signed by the Premier in 1978

on pages 13 and 33 of the document.

I think there is a

growing new consensus not only in British Columbia, but in Canada, that

if we are to find our way out of our present difficulties we have to

look seriously at the kind of supply bills that we bring into a

legislature or parliament to be voted for or against. We have to take a

look at the method that we use to collect our revenues, the methods

that we use through these kinds of taxation bills that can stimulate

the economy or put it into a recession. This government has missed the

boat by reaching to the past and saying: "It's the good old past that

will help us. Monetarism from the nineteenth century is the answer."

think there's a growing awareness in this province that if we are going

to rise above our difficulties, we can no longer protect ourselves

against the international marketplace; we must compete in the

international marketplace. We must, therefore, compete with goods and

services that are needed in the international marketplace, and we must

do it competitively. There has been no indication from this government

that they're heading in that direction. They say it, but they don't do

it. They say it, but it doesn't show up in the figures of Bill 57.

We're going along the same old way of monetarist economy theory, as

opposed to putting our economy in shape.

The monetarist

theory that this government endorses has brought the economy to its

knees. Even when the economy picks up. the kind of investment that

should be made now, so that we can take advantage of a resurgent

economy....

We won't be able to deal with it. The investment

that's needed to deal with it isn't being made now because of the

monetarism policies of this government and the federal Liberals. They,

the federal government and this Social Credit government, struck a

policy a few short years ago that has driven this country and this

province into the depths of recession, yet we see no indication from

the government through Bill 57 that

[ Page 8622 ]

they've

changed their mind. They are going to cure the ills of our economy even

if it completely kills the economy itself. That's what the policy of

this government and the federal Liberals is doing — killing the

economy. But then, Mr. Speaker, that's what it is designed to do.

This

paper put out in 1978 and signed by the Premier is a blueprint for

economic destruction. This blueprint has been followed by the federal

and provincial governments, and we are now reaping the outcome of those

policies put forward by this government.

We asked the

minister earlier today and last week whether, with all the new economic

indicators that the minister has, the minister would revise his budget

and bring in a new budget — not an interim supply bill, but a new

budget — to deal with the new economic reality that we are living with

today. The minister said no, that his first budget took into

consideration how bad things would get. The minister can't have it both

ways. If, when he brought in his budget, the minister knew that things

were going to get this bad, then he should have confessed that to this

Legislature and to the people of the province. He should not have told

us that things were rosy, as his budget indicated they were; he should

have levelled with us. Bill 57 is nothing more than an extension of

that original budget. It's calling for money to be spent from a budget

that has proved to be not workable.

I don't think this

government has done some of the fundamental things that have to be done

when bringing in any sort of budget. They haven't even taken a look at

the most fundamental questions of how an economy is to be run,

especially a resource economy such as ours. This government believes

that there's a definite schism between a government budget and the

private-sector economy. They believe the two aren't related other than

through taxation, which can hurt or help. They believe they're

separate. Their entire economic philosophy is simply put and, I submit,

simply thought out: no deficits, and create the proper climate for

investment. No, they didn't say "no deficits"; they said a balanced

budget, and create the proper investment climate. This government has

yet to bring in a balanced budget. They've either had surpluses or

deficits, neither being a balanced budget. Not once has this government

brought in what it says it believes in — a balanced budget.

see investor confidence at the lowest ebb in history. I suggest that we

have the lowest ebb of investor confidence and, therefore, of

investment in this province, because this government clings to the

monetarist theory which has driven us to our economic knees. It started

in 1978 with this government agreeing with the economic monetarist

theory of the Bank of Canada and the federal government. But it doesn't

end there. Today we see the government playing lackey to the federal

government's new economic policy. This is the only premier out of ten

to run to Ottawa and take direction from the federal government, which

has brought this country to its economic knees. We are the only

province meeting the requests of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the federal

Liberals.

In fact, this government will try little

experiments on Mr. Trudeau's behalf to see how it works before the

federal government will even put its little toes in the water. This

government is the running lackey of the federal Liberals. The federal

government wanted to bring in block spending for social services and

education. Who accepted it with open arms? This Social Credit

government. We are now suffering from that in our post-secondary

institutions and in our social services. The block funding has been a

disaster. My party opposed it when we were in government. That party

over there opened it, brought it in, caressed it, and we now have

disaster in those areas of financing in this province. This is all

reflected in the bill we're discussing.

Monetarism? The

federal Liberals said they liked it; this government said: "Us too."

Block funding for social programs? The federal government said they

wanted to push it down our throats; this government said:"It's good

enough for us." A restraint program that picks out one

section of the

economy as the culprit? The federal government said: "How about doing

it?" This government said: "It's good enough for us. We'll try it

first, Pierre." There isn't anyone who believes that we don't have to

show some restraint, but it's all of us — you, me, our neighbours, the

economy as a whole. If we are ever to get a handle on our own economy,

we do have to show some restraint, but restraint in order to build up

the capital goods to invest into our economy so that we can become

autonomous, free from the United States and other foreign control.

MR. RITCHIE: You've been reading something.

MR. LEA:

The member accuses me of reading. Yes, I have been. I wish I could make

the same accusation against you. You obviously haven't been reading.

The

federal government's economic policies have been disastrous. Their

financial-sharing programs with the provinces have been disastrous.

This government in British Columbia has embraced those policies — the

same policies that brought us to our knees economically, that brought

us to our knees in terms of cost-sharing with the federal government on

much-needed social programs in this province. Block funding? This

government got suckered, but willingly. Now the federal government is

saying: "Only one sector of the economy has caused all our trouble."

This government is saying: "We think that too." At least the federal

government put a limit on its own spending, something that this

government won't do.

This government has not limited the

user fees to any specific amount. The sky is the limit. They raised

Hydro charges and all the user fees far beyond the limit that they set

for one particular sector of the economy. This government would be

better served if it would find some way to stimulate our economy and to

create jobs. If you create jobs you stimulate the business world, trade

and commerce, and the whole general economy will begin to pick up. But

you don't do it through monetarism and killing the economy.

Mr.

Speaker, it's not that I think what I'm saying is so important, but I

think this debate is important. I find it absolutely frightening that

we don't have a quorum in this House for a debate. Not only do we not

have a quorum to debate interim supply; we don't have one single member

of the press gallery paying any bit of attention to this debate. I'd

like to dwell on that for a moment, because I think it's deplorable

that the debates in this House are not being covered by the media; only

the highlights during question period. I say it's a disservice, not to

that side or this side of the House but to the people of this province,

that the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) or the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), when they speak, are not heard because

the gallery doesn't print it or put it out. That is not an insult

against you, Mr. Member. That is thick up there; that's an insult

against you.

[ Page 8623 ]

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Democracy

is not being served if the people of this province, through the free

press, do not hear what the members of this Legislature are saying. I

suggest to all of my colleagues in here that they are not hearing

what's going on in the debates of this session through the media. I

suggest to you that it isn't the fault of the reporters up there. I

believe that they are understaffed and do not have the opportunity to

cover modern government and modern Legislatures as they should. We are

not being served by the free press and media generally in this

province. We are not being served, and the people are not being served.

I was going to make a point about the quorum, but let's just keep the

members we have.

The government brings in Bill 57, asking us

as legislators to approve some more spending out of the budget which

was passed — without the estimates, of course — just a few short weeks

ago. We as the opposition have to vote for this legislation, because

not to vote for it would mean that senior citizens wouldn't get their

pension money, handicapped people wouldn't get their money, the civil

service wouldn't be paid, and the private sector that deals with

government wouldn't get paid. So we are under an obligation to pass

this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Vote against it. It will go through.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Member, you've only been here a few short months. You don't quite

understand. We have to vote for the legislation, or the province would

come to a standstill. But we do not agree with the figures in here, and

the manner in which the revenues are being raised and spent.

AN HON. MEMBER: So vote against it.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, shall we all ignore him? It's hard to ignore such stupidity.

are not going to solve the economic problems of British Columbia by

doing one thing only: that is, restraining the wages of the civil

servants and the people who work for Crown corporations. We are going

to solve the economic crisis in this province and in Canada only if we

can reach consensus with the different segments that make up our

economy: labour, business and government. Once there is a consensus

from those three groups, then maybe we can move on to solve some of the

problems we face in this province, But you don't try to strike an

agreement alter you’ve set the ground rules, as Bill 57, and the

Premier and his government have done.

Mr. Speaker, this

piece of legislation that we're going to be passing is a farce. Because

of this government. many aspects of revenue and spending do not come

anywhere near this Legislature. Was the Legislature consulted when

there was a new user fee put on the water of this province — $100

million of revenue to this government that was not discussed in this

Legislature? This government indexes taxation; they've indexed the

taxation on gasoline. Did you know that the fishermen in my riding over

five months have faced an increase of 26 percent on fuel, because the

fuel that they use has been indexed by that minister and that

government? Fishermen fighting to save their income, fighting to save

their investment in their boats, are being faced with an indexed

taxation when at the same time we see governments taking the indexing

out of old-age pensions. Isn't there something wrong?

Can

the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) sit there in complete

partisanship? Can't people during moments of crisis say: "Let's get

together; there is a common enemy"? The common enemy is a phenomenon

we've never faced before: high inflation and high unemployment at the

same time. In modern terms it's called stagflation. We know that the

old doesn't work; we know that to combat this new phenomenon, this

budget won't work and this interim supply won't work. Why aren't we

looking together for new answers to this new problem that's bringing us

to our economic knees? We have economic holocaust in this province, in

this country and in the world, and the member for Kamloops says: "If

you don't like it, don't vote for it." Do any of us like it on the

government side or on this side? None of us like it. We may differ in

solutions, but maybe we wouldn't if we talked; maybe we wouldn't if we

had some debate in this House that was meaningful; maybe we wouldn't if

the Minister of Finance would come clean, if the Minister of Finance

would bring in Bill 57 and say: "Here, British Columbians. Here is the

state of the finances in the province today. What are we going to do

about it? Give me some help." No, that doesn^t happen.

This

government thinks they have the answer: monetarism. They recommend

something that has been proved not to work. They say they're for

monetarism, but they don't really practise monetarism either. They

practise something else that hasn't worked: a mixture of Keynesianisin

and monetarism. It's what we've been doing since the early forties. Now

we are in a new situation, a new economic crisis, one never known to us

before. They should be bringing together all segments of our economy

and saying: how do we meet this new crisis? How do we find some

solutions? What is the forum? How do we involve everyone? Maybe the

opposition has some ideas that might be of help. Maybe the government

has some ideas that they don't "ant to share with us. I hope not. I

hope they have some ideas, but I hope they're willing to share them

with us.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance stands up and says: "Oh, by the

way, here is a new bill, number 57; it's called interim supply. I'm

going to sit down now, and I want you all to vote quietly for it. but

I'm not going to fill you in; I'm not going to let British Columbia

know what our financial situation is." Only last week he said the

economic indicators are changed. What have they changed from and to?

Where are we in this province? Or do the Minister of Finance and his

government feel that the people of this province are not mature enough

to take the bitter truth and try to find solutions? Or do the Minister

of Finance and his government think we are a bunch of children who have

to be treated with no information and who have to trust the adults —

the adults being them?

adults hoard information? Do mature people hoard information and not

share it with the people they are paid to serve? That's what this

government is doing, Mr. Speaker. We are not going to find solutions to

our economic crisis by acting in an immature manner. In my opinion,

this government is acting immaturely by not sharing with the people of

this province the reality of the situation of the day and asking for

help. Nobody has all the answers. This government, through its stubborn

clinging to monetarism, has proved that they certainly do not have all

the answers. And some of the answers that they have decided are right

are proving to be absolutely disastrous.

[ Page 8624 ]

The

question that we have to face is: how in British Columbia can we help,

through our budgets and government policies, the economy of this

province to be a competing, thriving, healthy, revenue-paying economy,

so that we can supply the services to our people? We are rich in this

province with natural resources, but there is no wealth until we decide

that we're going to transform those resources into usable items.

couldn't believe this government when, a third of the way into

northeast coal, it finally discovered that the manpower required to

meet the coal project was not in place. Can you believe that a

government in 1982 had not even done the most fundamental

guns-and-butter calculations of economics to know whether or not the

proper manpower numbers were there to service a project that they were

a third of the way into? It happened. This government, almost in panic,

found out way down the line going into northeast coal, because of

improper planning or no planning at all, that if we are going to man

northeast coal, we're going to have to import the workers. It won't be

Canadians and British Columbians working in that northeast coal; it

will be people we've brought in who've been trained somewhere else,

because there's no coordination between government, industry and

vocational training.

I know this government hates the word

"planning." They somehow conjure up in their minds the idea that

planning has something to do with communism. They see communism as grey

people living on grey streets listening to grey music coming out of

grey speakers on grey walls, and they know that's bad. That's their

intellectual analysis of what planning is all about. There's only one

opposite to planning, and that's no planning. This government which

does not plan has no planning. They therefore find themselves

knee-jerking around from one economic development to another: northeast

coal, the stadium, B.C. Place, ALRT, Pier B-C — but not even a hint of

any coordinated planning among all those different projects or the

government budget or the economy as a whole, because they don't believe

in it. They feel that as long as they look with a friendly eye on

business investment and make some attempt to balance their budget, all

will be well. That's government's role, they feel. Government's role is

to do nothing except make the business community feel comfortable and

try to balance the budget — but, my God, no planning. How terrible it

would be if the people of this province, with their government, were to

plan.

The budget that this bill is based upon is a deceit on

the people of this province, because we have not had the government

share with us our own public business. During hard economic times it is

a piece of paper that will not help our economy to recover, grow and

become healthy. It is a holding action budget. It's a holding action

interim supply bill. The government is bereft of ideas and they're too

proud or arrogant to ask for help and reach out their hands to the

opposition and say: "We may need your help now. We want to share

ideas." They're too arrogant or too ignorant to go to the business

community and say: "We can't do it alone." They're too arrogant or too

ignorant to go to the labour community and say: "We can't do it alone.

We are together in a very serious problem."

The sickness in

our economy is self-induced to a great extent. Therefore only we can

cure the sickness in our economy. This budget, this interim supply and

this government are not doing any of the things that have to be done to

lead us out of the quagmire we're in. They are satisfied to sit idly by

and say: "Let the private sector do it." They're not even asking the

private sector for any advice. They are satisfied, like their

counterparts in Washington and Ottawa, to subsidize Massey-Ferguson and

Chrysler into obsolescence, but they will not put money into research

and development for the small and intermediate companies, which is

where innovation, new ideas and new technology come from. Do you know

what this government put into research and development last year? Only

$8.1 million.

If we are to grab ourselves by our bootstraps

and pull ourselves out of this economic quagmire, we have to start

afresh. This government should let the restraint legislation they have

brought in die on the order paper. They should come to the people of

this province, to the opposition, to labour and to the business

community, and say: "How do we get ourselves out of the problems we're

in?"

This government knows that the solution they've put

forward in the form of their restraint program is politically good.

They know that by bringing in this restraint bill, things are going to

be fine politically. They also know that in terms of getting ourselves

back to a healthy economy, it doesn't do one damn thing. That is

political hypocrisy at its worst. People are losing their homes and a

lifetime of work and investment in their business. They're losing their

jobs, dignity and pride, and this government still plays stupid

political games with everybody and everything in this province.

We have to vote for it because people have to get paid, but we do not agree with the philosophy behind it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

We've heard a lot of words emanating from the socialist side of the

Legislature about hypocrisy and all of those unparliamentary terms that

shouldn't be used in this interim supply bill. It is merely due to the

fact that the socialists opposite, instead of getting down and facing

the real issues in this Legislature, spend their time golfing and

making a lot of noises and being political. Never once have they

offered any concrete suggestions on how to assist the economy of this

great province of ours, which is certainly going through some very

trying and troublesome times. As part of this great Canada, which is

going through some very trying and troublesome times, we're also tied

to the North American economy and to the United States.

They seem to forget that it was those socialists over there — some

of whom are sitting here now — who, when they were in Ottawa, got in

bed with the Trudeau socialist government and wholeheartedly supported

many programs that are fundamental to the problems that we're

experiencing today in Canada. We've heard a lot of phrases, which I

shall not use in this Legislature...but I do want to say that they pass

our ears and we know that they haven't even got their heart in the

debate.

When this budget was first brought out, what did the

socialists opposite say about the budget? They said: "Oh, this budget

is so good that it's an election budget." The member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) was a short-lived Minister of Finance in that government at

one time — very short-lived. Remember, he's the official Finance critic

for the opposition. He stood in the Legislature and said: "Oh, my

gracious, those Socreds have done it again. They have balanced their

budget in these very difficult economic times. I don't know how they

did it, but they balanced the budget again. It's got to be an election

budget." Today we're passing a portion of that budget in order that the

civil servants in this province can be paid. We're sitting here today

because of the

[ Page 8625 ]

dallying and time-consuming tactics of the socialist opposition.

What did their leader say? Their leader said....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Oh, he expects an election, the budget is so good. After the budget was

brought down in this Legislature some months ago, their leader....

AN HON. MEMBER: What leader?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I know, Mr. Member, they're fighting among themselves; they're having

difficulty getting together. Their leader says this budget is so good

that the Socreds are going to call an election on it. Yet today, when

we're passing interim supply, a portion of the budget, in order that

the province can operate for the next two months, they stand up and

say: "Oh, no. Terrible, terrible!"

I don't want to get into

the economy today, but it was touched on lightly by the member. I say

"lightly," because they never come to grips with issues facing this

province. They're a highly political opposition. They never talk about

the subject of the economy. All they can say is that this government

isn't doing anything for the economy. This government has more projects

going in the province of British Columbia today to create firm,

long-standing jobs than any other province in Canada or any

jurisdiction in North America — make no mistake about that. All they

can do is stand up with their airy-fairy criticism. They said the

Japanese are going to have control of northeast coal. Did you ever hear

them say anything about the criticism of the Kaiser deal? In the days

when Kaiser got into financial problems, the Japanese steel industry

came to their rescue — they owned 38.88 percent. What happened to the

price of coal? The price of coal went up and up. They have tried to

pour cold water on every single job-creating project that this Social

Credit government has brought forth to keep people employed in this

province. They talk about taxes. If we spent a quarter of the money

they recommend on their airy-fairy programs, we would have to raise

taxes substantially in this province.

The socialists opposite get in bed with the Liberal government in Ottawa. They've been in bed, and they can't get out.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Oh, yes, my friend, you were down there in Ottawa and you supported

those Liberals on some of the very policies that they're trying to back

out of today. The Leader of the Opposition stood in this House and

chastised this government for allowing FIRA projects to go ahead, when

we desperately need that investment capital from other jurisdictions to

create jobs. He stood in this Legislature not too many years ago and

said: "Give all the oil and gas to Ottawa; nationalize it." They

supported the Liberals and that's their policy. That's what's happening

today. They have driven billions of dollars of investment out of this

country, dollars that would be creating jobs in British Columbia today,

and they try to tell me they're not in bed with the federal Liberals.

They're all tied to the same stick. They're all socialists, and they're

trying to back out of the policies this little government warned them

about years ago.

MR. LEGGATT What about the national energy program?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I just mentioned the national energy program. They wouldn't have needed

that program if the leader of the socialists in this province had had

his way. They would have given all the resources of British Columbia to

Ottawa — driven away billions of dollars in investment, thousands and

thousands of jobs. When that socialist opposition was government, they

drove the petroleum industry out of British Columbia at a time of the

highest demand for petroleum products that we'd ever witnessed. Right

in the middle of the first energy crisis after 1973, that socialist

government drove the petroleum industry from British Columbia. As I've

said before, that fellow who represents Vancouver East should have

worked for Warner Bros., because he's created more ghost towns in the

Peace River than Warner Bros. ever did for any of their movies.

The

people of British Columbia understand what you socialists are all

about. You'd rather spend time marching around this province in protest

against projects that are going to create jobs than in coming to grips

with the real issues facing this province. This government believes in

having parks, it believes in protecting the environment, but we have to

have a balance. If those airy-fairy socialists were in government, the

whole province would be a park, but we'd all have empty bellies.

It's

been interesting for me to listen to the debate emanating from the

opposite side of the House with regard to northeast coal, a project

which is going to create thousands and thousands of jobs. It is not a

make-work project but one that is going to give a basis to the economy

for years and years.

MR. LAUK: How many? You won't give any figures.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

You didn't put northeast coal together, and your leader would stop

northeast coal dead in its tracks if he were elected premier of this

province; he's said so on many occasions. Don't talk to me about

northeast coal. You couldn't put the project together. When you were

travelling around Japan, you were taking baths instead of selling coal.

Once a social worker, always a social worker — that's what the Leader

of the Opposition is. Give things out, create expectations in this

province that no economy could support. That's all they've done:

they're just like the Liberals in Ottawa. Socialists — give it away;

build up expectations.

We should be working together. If

they had any real desire to help the economy of British Columbia, to

help future generations have jobs, those socialists would be working

with this government to solve the problem, instead of being over there

with their airy-fairy politics, shouting politics all the time. They're

not interested. The only thing that socialist opposition over there is

interested in is getting their hands on the power of this province and

ruining it like they did six years ago.

Yes, they would stop

all the projects. When we brought in a project for the Minister of

Highways to build the Annacis Island bridge to help the future

transport of this province, to help the economy of this province, they

were against it. When we went ahead with Pier B-C and the trade and

convention centre, even the member for Vancouver Centre was against it.

MR. LAUK: What!

[ Page 8626 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, you were, my friend.

MR. LAUK: Against what?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

You were against it, you were against Pier B-C and the trade and

convention centre. Oh, yes, you were against it until it almost fell by

the wayside because your socialist friends in Ottawa couldn't even see

the benefits. But now they're trying to get in bed with us. It's too

late, my friend. The people in Vancouver Centre have got your number;

they will remember that you were against it.

I remember last

year, Mr. Speaker, when this little Social Credit government over here

was coming to grips with the problem and bringing on these great

projects, what did they say we were doing? They said we were building

monuments to ourselves in the province. I remember well standing in my

place last year and saying: "We're building monuments all right; we're

building monuments for employment; and we're building monuments for

future generations of British Columbians to keep the economy going and

to keep it strong." Now they want to move in and take it all over so

they can ruin it again. They want to create huge deficits that future

generations will have to pay for. They would have a post office and a

courthouse on every corner of every hamlet in British Columbia if they

were in government, and they think that would help the economy. I'll

tell you, we'd be selling postage stamps that big; maybe it would keep

them busy licking them.

Oh, those socialists over there....

Try as they may, they're in bed with those fellows down in Ottawa; they

supported the policies of the Liberals down in Ottawa. I don't care

whether it was FIRA, which drove investment capital out of this

province when it was needed, or whether it was the national energy

program. I don't care what program it was, the socialists have been in

bed.... So I say that I support this interim supply bill, Mr. Speaker,

and I hope that in the not-too-distant future we'll have the

opportunity right here in this Legislature to discuss all of these

great programs and to say what we've done for the small business

community in this province. I'll be able to tell you what happened down

in Manitoba as soon as the socialists went in. Oh, they talk about....

Well, one minute they'd start northeast coal; the next minute they'd

renegotiate it. I know how they'd renegotiate it. They'd renegotiate it

like the socialists did with the hydro projects in Manitoba: they

negotiated them right out the door. There wouldn't be any projects.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Alcan?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Well, that's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Alcan. Oh, yes,

the NDP came in with with all their airy-fairy ideas; they're going to

renegotiate the Alcan project. Where did they renegotiate the Alcan

project, Mr. Speaker? They renegotiated it right out the back door, not

for just today but for ever and ever. That's how the socialists would

renegotiate the northeast coal deal. I'll tell you, they'd negotiate it

right out the back door. There wouldn't be any northeast coal deal.

remember them standing in this Legislature last year saying: "If you

bring on northeast coal, you're going to kill the southeast." Well, I

want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to be down in the

southeast about three weeks ago to open one of those great industrial

parks created by policies of this government, which is helping

communities to bring on industrial land. The park was sold out before

we even got a chance to cut the ribbon on it, because the southeast

part of this province, because of additional coal sales since northeast

coal was announced and because of an additional price which was brought

in on the back of northeast coal — the highest negotiated price of coal

in the history of the southeast, on the back of northeast coal....

don't care where you go in this province, but you can see people

working as a result of the programs and the policies of this Social

Credit government — not make-work programs, not a post office on every

corner, not a social welfare office on every corner passing out the

taxpayers' money, like the social worker leader of the socialist party

opposite.... Once a social worker, always a social worker.

MR. COCKE: Once a car salesman, always a car salesman.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Once a car salesman, always a businessman, my friend — you'd better

believe it. Once a social worker like your leader, always a social

worker; once a businessman, always a businessman. Right on!

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Well, now we hear from a lawyer — one of those socialist lawyers over

there, one of those fellows who went down to Ottawa. When he was down

in Ottawa, he supported the Liberals. Oh, yes, he's a great guy.

Support the Liberals; get in bed with the Liberals; you're all in bed

with the Liberals.

MR. COCKE: You're in bed with the Liberals.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Now we're hearing from the member for New Westminster, the member who

took the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, with no competition

at all, and lost $180 million in one year. When the British Columbia

Development Corporation, under the great leadership of this little

government, went into the city of New Westminster and said, "We see a

great project here, and we'll rebuild this downtown core" — it's

happening today and thousands of people are employed — that member from

New Westminster was against it. He said it would never work. It was too

big a scheme for his little mind.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Yes, I was there two weeks ago. The member was invited, but he was too

busy out at some social welfare rally. He couldn't attend to the

business of his riding — something that's progressive, something that's

going ahead, something that's creating jobs. Mr. Speaker, I certainly

support this amendment.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Maybe if you hadn't lost $180 million with ICBC when you managed it,

you might be sitting over here instead of sitting over there. Think of

that, my friend. You fellows ruined the economy of this province.

MR. COCKE: We did?

[ Page 8627 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Yes, you did. I want to tell you that my memory isn't that short — but

it isn't that long either. I can remember those dim, dark days back in

November of 1975. I remember them well. There was a high demand for

mineral products, and prices were high, there was a high demand for

lumber, and prices were high, and the economy of British Columbia,

because the socialists couldn't run it, was going down the tube. And

what happened? The social welfare leader of the socialists over there,

who had tried to run the ship of finance, abandoned the ship as it was

sinking. He got off and he put the little member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) on to try to patch it up with bubble gum, but it was too late.

What did he say before he left? He said: "We'll cut programs and

services to people in this province to balance the budget." I remember

him saying it back in November. And what did he do? He froze the hiring

of civil servants. He cut back on this and that, and he retrenched so

much that he had to put backup lights on his pencils.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker, I want to say that I support this interim supply bill. We want

to ensure that the civil servants of this province are paid. By

delaying it, the NDP don't want the civil servants of this province to

be paid. They want them to go home at the middle of the month without

any paycheques — empty bank accounts — yet they stand up here and they

pontificate about how they're for the worker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I won't do it, that would be too cruel. I've been too cruel to them already.

I want you to get the message, Mr. Speaker, that I certainly support this interim supply bill.

MR. LAUK:

First of all, I want to apologize to all of those visitors to Victoria

who may be sitting in the gallery. I want to explain that the hon.

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development used to be a fine

orator in this chamber. He had his day, but time has passed him by — he

and other graduates of the Huey Long school of political oratory. The

evangelical spirit of days gone by is kept alive by the hon. endangered

species from South Peace River, who is now, as they say in political

parlance, "missing and running." He used to be a big gun on the

treasury bench. Remember those days? They're a dim memory now in the

twilight years of his political career. He's gone from a big gun to a

wet firecracker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the bill, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: From the wet firecracker to the bill.

The

hon. minister mentioned a few things, and I'll go through them briefly.

There was little of any substance in his remarks, certainly nothing

that had anything to do with the bill. But there were one or two points

that might be remotely related. He suggested the economy was ruined in

1974-75 by the NDP administration, and that's been an oft-repeated

charge of the government over there. It's a false charge. It's not true

in any way. I would ask the Minister of Finance, who is still in his

seat, whether he agrees with this statement:

"The

worldwide decline in economic activity from 1974 to 1976, coupled with

the quadrupling of energy prices, brought the economic situation of

British Columbia into even sharper focus. Governments were committed to

spending programs initiated in the years of rapid growth and, as their

tax revenues fell with the decline in economic activity, were faced

with unprecedented deficits."

Can the minister nod his head

if he agrees with that statement? It certainly doesn't focus any blame

on the NDP administration, as the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr.

McGeer), the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Minister of

Industry (Hon. Mr. Phillips) have claimed over the last few sessions in

this chamber. They're not indicating any agreement, but they should.

That statement was made by their own Premier in February 1978.

said many other things in that same statement. He called upon the

Trudeau administration to bring in tight money policies to raise

interest rates. It's little wonder that the Minister of Industry has

rushed out of the chamber after his miss and run; it's his own first

minister who called upon the federal government and has played hand in

glove with Pierre Elliott Trudeau ever since. Who went back this

February and met with the first minister? Who was the only premier to

come back with a restraint program along the lines of what Pierre

Elliott Trudeau wanted imposed? The first minister of this government.

He's Pierre Elliott Trudeau's pet poodle. Everybody knows it. He's the

Liberal lapdog. He's playing along and encouraging the economic

disaster that's befalling the Canadian economy.

The minister

talks about northeast coal. I have here a confidential report to the

head office of the Royal Bank of Canada in Montreal, Quebec, dated May

3, 1982. On page 3 it states: "The potential effects of northeast coal

in British Columbia should not be exaggerated in spite of its

importance to B.C. The project represents at most 4,000 construction

jobs, and continuing B.C. employment, if the economy improves, of 2,500

jobs."

HON. MR. CURTIS: Are you going to table that document?

MR. LAUK:

I'll have to get leave from the author of the document before tabling

it. I’ll get a copy to you one way or another, Mr. Minister.

I was saying, the report says 2,500 jobs, if the economy improves, in

an economy where the labour force exceeds 1.3 million. The same report

states that "the Minister of Finance, in an answer earlier this week in

Question Period, claimed that the number of people working in this

province was on the increase." On page 1 it states:

"The

forecast is for no real growth for the B.C. economy in 1982. It is

worth recalling that the real output in 1975 declined as well. The

broadest economic statistic, which is also very current, is estimated

employment. In the first quarter of 1982, total employment was down by

1.6 percent from the year earlier. This is the first such quarterly

decline since 1958, and it's going to get worse."

Is a

chartered bank operating within British Columbia better informed than

our own Minister of Finance? That certainly seems to be the case. If

the Minister of Finance cannot be better informed, but stands up and

misinforms the chamber in Question Period, it indicates a shocking lack

of research by the Minister of Finance. It's proof positive that

[ Page 8628 ]

he's not capable of acting as the Minister of Finance in this province.

I haven't got good news today in debating the supply act.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're resigning.

MR. LAUK:

No, I said I haven't got good news. My resignation would come as good

news to no one in this province except you and my family, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can give you other names.

MR. LAUK: You can, but I'd have to check them out as usual, Mr. Speaker.

have a press clipping that I want to raise here with the folks. It

says: "B.C. Faces Depression, Lauk Tells Convention." Do you remember

that press clipping? I'm sure the Premier wants to leave now. He's

going to be embarrassed and squirm in his seat if he stays. This

article appeared in the Vancouver Sun on August 13, 1979, on page A8. I'll read part of it to the committee again:

"'British

Columbia faces a major depression in the early 1980s,' NDP MLA Gary

Lauk said Saturday. 'Continuing oil price increases and massive public

and private debt will send unemployment soaring and land values

plummeting,' Lauk told the annual convention of B.C. Young New

Democrats at the Britannia Centre. 'We are facing something pretty

serious: the free market system is hitting a reef,' Lauk said. 'We owe

ten times what we own.'"

I went on to make five significant statements with respect to the early eighties in British Columbia.

What was the response from the political spectrum right? Here's one response, an

article on August 14, 1979, in the then Victoria Times

on page 16: "Lauk Depression Gives Prof Chuckle." This should amuse the

minister of wisdom, universities, technology and hopeless causes. I'm

quoting from the article:

"'A provincial

politician's dire prediction of a major depression in B.C. early next

decade because of soaring oil price increases and massive public and

private debt is nonsense,' a University of Victoria economics professor

said today. Dr. Leonard Laudadio, chairman of the university's

economics department, was commenting in an interview on a speech last

weekend by Gary Lauk, Vancouver Centre NDP MLA. Lauk is reported to

have told the annual convention...."

They repeat the statement.

"Laudadio

said it was a silly forecast. He said, 'It's irresponsible for Lauk to

make such a long-range forecast which is likely based on very little

economic information. It's a politician's forecast, not an economic

forecast.'"

That I will agree with, Mr.

Speaker. Dr. Laudadio was correct, and that's proof positive that

economists can't predict a damn thing in this province and in this

country.

As my friend the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich)

has said many times, if all of the economists of the world were laid

end to end, that would be a good thing. An economist tries to do more

than they're capable of doing. A politician, on the other hand, knows

two things. He listens to economic analysis from the economists, but he

listens to the people, and he knows a little bit about human nature.

From that, he can make suggestions and predictions that are more likely

and more probable than the so-called science of economy.

Since

that speech of over three years ago, the Premier of this province and

the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) and

others in this chamber.... Even as short a time ago as last spring and

last December, I think, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

made his last jibe. They found the

article — I'd almost forgotten that

it was reported — and they raised it in their speeches last December.

They said: 'Aren't all of these dire predictions that are being made

funny." They said that employment is up and that things are booming in

December and so on. They said that Lauk's predictions didn't come true.

I stood again, and I said that when I made that speech, I was

talking about the first part of the 1980s, and it was due. I said that

massive public and private debt is leading this country to disaster and

that the so-called free enterprise system was hitting a reef it hadn't

hit before. Do you think they would listen? Not a chance. Do you think

they're listening now over there? They know the answer. They're out

now, Mr. Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr.

McGeer), talking to your constituents about how you're showing a deaf

car to the warnings that you've had over many years. Why don't you

listen? What is your problem? What is the problem with that group over

there? Do you believe these myths? Do you have blind faith in the

economy and your view of science? Do you have such blind faith that you

will not listen?

The government has stood by helpless and powerless to do

anything about the massive private and public debt in British Columbia

that would have helped get us through some of the uneven spots during

these bad times. Do you think they would have taken my advice in 1979

and moved quickly towards a reduction of that massive public debt? No.

They've let Hydro continue to be that monster, that Mammon, that god of

greed. It's completely out of control, creating even more of a

financial disaster in this province than the economy itself.

I'm

going to make some other predictions today. The members opposite can

mark them down and make fun of me for the next few months. When they

come true, they'll sit silently and sheepishly like schoolboys. They

won't admit their problems. They'll hide their heads in the sand.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're a joke.

MR. LAUK:

Here's the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing saying that I'm a joke.

There's another hon. member whose time has passed him. Time has walked

right past him, and he didn't even notice it. These are the twilight

years of their political career.

By Christmas there will be

16 percent unemployment in this province, and that will be a minimum.

We'll still be unable to deal with inflation because of artificially

high energy costs. There will be a glut of land on the market through

and into the spring that will lower prices of housing and land still

further, creating a critical path towards depression. Don't say that

you didn't know it would happen; I'm telling you now.

October it will be fully revealed that one major Canadian chartered

bank will be in virtual receivership, if not actual receivership.

Again, it has to do with very grave outstanding oil and gas loans. The

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, which has shareholders' equity of

about $2.4 billion has an outstanding loan to Dome Petroleum of $1.6

[ Page 8629 ]

billion

or $1.7 billion. Dome Petroleum has outstanding loans with other banks.

It's not paying interest. It's the most outstanding debtor. There are

others, particularly with the Bank of Commerce. They're not paying

interest. The interest is accumulating. That's called the

capitalization of interest. The most dangerous attack on the economy

one can conceive of is the capitalization of interest. The silly high

interest rates are breaking everybody, and they'll eventually break one

of the most powerful chartered banks in the country.

October 1981, an average 27 percent of our major industrial companies'

outflow was for debt-servicing charges, which includes interest and

other charges. In less than a year the total outflow of those

debt-servicing charges has now increased to 64 percent of their annual

budgets. In less than 12 months, it has gone from 27 percent — the

member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) knows how tremendous a problem this

is — to 64 percent to service debt for the major industrial companies.

don't know what the Premier discussed with the labour and business

leaders this morning. I hope they came to grips with some of the things

I'm talking about here. I'm pretty sure they discussed some aspects of

what I'm saying. We are facing a major crisis which they were warned

about years ago. You can no longer have blind faith in the system. You

have to come up with some answers. I don't believe that throwing money

after the problem is the answer either. The more money you throw, the

more inflation, the more debt, the more problems are created.

1968 a bill called the Consumer Credit Control Act was introduced in

the House of Commons. It was rejected by the Liberals, even though it

was introduced by a Liberal.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must....

MR. LAUK: That bill was introduced very close to the Supply Act in the federal....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must remind you that there are limits to the rule of relevancy in this bill. I know the member is aware of it.

MR. LAUK: Well, I may not be in order, but you have to admit I'm charming.

Consumer

credit controls were introduced and rejected by the federal government

in 1968. We had an opportunity then in this country to control the

massive inflation and massive debt which have now led us to this

crisis. Because of political cowardice, we didn't take the opportunity.

That political cowardice was shared by all parties. Except for a few

members of the New Democratic Party caucuses across the country, no one

was speaking out about the massive debt that was building up.

Now

to the bill. The last prediction I want to make is this: without

increases in user charges or taxes, the growth of the provincial

budget, for the first time since the war, will decline in real terms in

1983. I think the Minister of Finance should know that, don't you, Mr.

Speaker? The real growth of the provincial budget will decline. In

other words, there will be a net loss; that's without increases in

taxes.

This year, this most irresponsible government has

raised user charges and taxation on businesses and ordinary people.

They've ignored the assessment problem with ordinary property taxes.

They've been warned, month after month.

They've taken no

steps. They've allowed their Crown corporation giants to bleed the

people of this province to the point where we're on our knees. People

are hurting out there. Glib answers will no longer suffice. The

Minister of Finance can no longer stand in his place in question

period, and during this debate, and give glib answers and say, "I don't

know," and give inaccurate statistics and say: "Well, I'll have to

cheek that." He's got to get on the job. That whole government has got

to get on the job. You just can't meet now with the labour leaders and

the business leaders and say: "Well, I'm sorry that we didn't do

better; now let's work together." You have contributed substantially to

the weakness of the British Columbia economy, and now you want

forgiveness. There's no forgiveness in the political system; there is

in personal, social interaction. I forgive each one of you, as a human

being. As a government, there is no room for forgiveness; there's only

room for resignation. That's all there is: resignation.

say that this government is not fit for public office and should resign

before one more day of this devastating myopic view of economic

solutions goes on. Every step they take is more and more devastating to

the economy. They've not just been content to make a mess in British

Columbia, they've encouraged the federal government to go into

monetarism, claiming they didn't have any

part in it, but we know it's

in a document — February 1978. The government is playing lap dog to the

federal government's restraint program, which is tinkering with the

economy. It's a devastatingly foolish budget at the federal level.

call upon this government to withdraw the Supply Act. We call upon this

government to bring in an emergency budget; that's what they must do.

Bring in a budget that is sound and sensible, one which takes into

consideration the tremendous negative forces now in effect, caused by

massive debt foreclosures and receiverships across the country, and in

British Columbia particularly, where forestry and mining are on their

knees as well. The people of British Columbia should at least have been

standing during this recession. The government should have supplied the

resources necessary for each citizen, businessman and worker in this

province to have something to fight back with.

What have

they done in the last year? They've raised taxes and user charges; they

have allowed Crown corporations, through Hydro, to increase rates. They

have sat idly by, as the Minister of Universities. Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has done, and allowed that incompetent

utility, the B.C. Telephone Co., to increase its rates massively. That

minister said nothing about it, because his friends and campaign

contributors are on that board. Ordinary subscribers in this province

are being bled dry by a utility that has an absolute monopoly over that

telephone system. Now they're laying off workers. They're the only

company in Canada that has a secure income, and they are laying off

workers. The government again sits idly, by and gives answers in

question period saying: "Well, we don't interfere in private

enterprise." Since when was a massive monopoly like the B.C. Telephone

Co. private enterprise?

AN HON. MEMBER: Order! That's federal legislation.

MR. LAUK: My good friend from Prince George, whose constituency name escapes me for the moment....

[ Page 8630 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's not interrupt the member who has the floor.

MR. LAUK:

He says it's federal legislation. A lot can be done in this

Confederation, Mr. Speaker, I say to that member, by strong-minded

provincial politicians who can express leadership and strength rather

than this weak-kneed, scaredy-cat attitude taken by the Minister of

Universities and that government with respect to the CRTC. Do you know

what his big stand was with the CRTC and the public utility? He put up

a communication dish at taxpayers' expense out on the front lawn. It

didn't even work. I couldn't even get the lacrosse game from Richmond

on it.

HON. MR. McGEER: No blue movies, either.

MR. LAUK: Not even an interesting movie to make it all worthwhile.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, let's not interrupt the member. He's having difficulty staying on the bill.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, I will end with my remarks now, but I want to say that I'm

predicting again 16 percent-plus unemployment this Christmas and that a

major charter bank will be in virtual receivership.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thanks to Dome.

MR. LAUK:

Thanks to Dome, but also thanks to a lot of inept attitudes on the part

of the federal and the provincial governments. And I predict that there

will be a further downturn in housing and land prices on a critical

path towards a depression. Does this bill meet any of those challenges?

I say no. Yes, we'll vote for supply, but it seems to me, Mr. Speaker,

that the Minister of Finance should withdraw this act and bring in an

emergency budget to deal with some of the dire consequences of ignoring

the negative impacts that are occurring in the economy.

HON. MR. MeGEER:

Mr. Speaker, the member who has just taken his scat isn't wrong in

everything he said. He came up with a dry prediction on Grizzly Valley,

but if indeed he put forward the notion that irresponsible spending and

high energy prices would bring about a severe recession — perhaps a

depression — then he was eminently correct in that. But, Mr. Speaker,

he neglected to tell us about the role the New Democratic Party has

played in all of this in Canada. He might have been better advised to

have given those predictions to his own caucus when the NDP was

government in this province and were marching British Columbia toward a

depression all on its own, apart from the economy of North America and

of Canada, because that's where the policies of the New Democratic

Party, as practised in this province, were taking British Columbia.

And

then, Mr. Speaker, we have had a translation of those same policies

into national policy in Canada. While the member who has just concluded

his remarks talked about the high cost of energy and the consequences

of irresponsible spending, the person who has been the champion of

public spending in Canada has been the national leader of the New

Democratic Party, Mr. Broadbent.

MR. SPEAKER: Would

the member please take his seat for just a moment. The same caution

that was given just a few moments ago still persists; that is, that the

bill before us is the Supply Act (No. 2), 1982. A historical review is

not in order, except as a passing remark.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I was merely giving some advice and observation to the members

opposite, who have been reluctant to grant supply and to support the

restraint programs in British Columbia that will make that supply serve

its purpose; who have been reluctant to permit investment in British

Columbia and to permit B.C. Hydro to do its job of supplying power to

this province and earning income for the province; who have been

against northeast coal, B.C. Place and all of the positive

employment-building programs of the province, and against all of the

restraint in public expenditure measures that the government has taken.

Yet the members opposite decry the unemployment and the public spending

and recommend that this government step aside, when its great job,

first of all, is to run against the current created in British Columbia

by the presence of the New Democratic Party when they were in

government and now to run against the national current as a result of

New Democratic Party policies being adopted by the Liberal government

in Ottawa. It was, after all, the New Democratic Party that put forward

the motion which defeated a responsible budget in Ottawa and put the

Liberals in power. It was the Liberals, put back in power with the help

of the New Democratic Party, who then put into place the national

energy policy. That was only echoing the advice given by the provincial

leader of the New Democratic Party, who offered to turn over all of the

petroleum resources of British Columbia if only the national government

would socialize them.

Now we're beginning to see the

consequences of that kind of action being taken by the national

government — $13 billion spent on foreign oil purchases.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member soon to relate the remarks to the bill before us.

HON. MR. McGEER:

They relate, Mr. Speaker, because it is the profligate spending in

Ottawa which is directly leading to the high interest rates, which

directly leads to the unemployment in British Columbia, which directly

leads to decreasing revenues to this government, which directly leads

to the necessity to put on restraint programs in the public service,

which directly leads to the difficulties we have in producing supply in

this country. You spend $13.5 billion for foreign oil, as we did in

Canada last year; you subsidize that with $3.6 billion directly given

to foreign powers, with the taxation raised partly through a natural

gas levy here in British Columbia, amounting to well over $100 million,

taken right out of the pockets of people of this province to give to

Saudi Arabia and Mexico. You have to add to that another $8.5 billion

spent implementing nationalization of our oil and gas industry, as

recommended by the New Democratic Party opposite and their leader, as

implemented by the Liberal leader of Canada, but with the support and

urging of Ed Broadbent and the national New Democratic Party.

The

member who just took his seat predicted the failure of a Canadian bank

because of interest payments on the debt of Dome Petroleum initiated by

the national energy program and the takeovers. If it were to take

place, then we could trace the blame directly back to the New

Democratic Party in

[ Page 8631 ]

British Columbia and the Leader of the Opposition right here in this province.

tell you, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member who took his seat that

we are in some difficulty in Canada because the national debt this year

will not be $19.5 billion, as announced in the recent federal budget,

but much more likely will be $23 billion, because the Canadian dollar

has slipped in value and those calculations of the national debt were

based on an 82 cent dollar. In addition to that, there will be another

$18 billion of debt racked up by provincial governments across this

country. We're over $40 billion in debt in current account this year,

with senior levels of government all in.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, I must caution you again. The debate upon which you have

embarked might be more easily determined to be in order in another

House, but not in this House under Bill 57.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Speaker, can you then explain to me, with these debts building up

in Canada, with revenues dropping and precious exchange being

squandered on purchasing oil when we have shut-in gas in British

Columbia, and with our gas being taxed and those tax dollars being sent

to Mexico and Saudi Arabia — why, with all of this and with the

difficulty governments in Canada are having in facing our deficit — we

have the New Democratic Party, provincially and nationally, opposing

the restraint program? If we continue to spend money that isn't there,

as has been encouraged by your national leader — the leader of the New

Democratic Party — how on earth can interest rates be brought down?

Where does the leader of the New Democratic Party, nationally and

provincially, think the money is going to come from to finance these

horrible current account debts we're building up, as well as the

purchase of foreign oil?

MR. LEGGATT: You're going to borrow it abroad.

HON. MR. McGEER:

It's going to be borrowed abroad — you bet your life it is, Mr. Member.

And as that happens, interest rates in Canada will be pushed up. There

is no other choice.

How do we work our way out of it? We

work our way out of it by totally abandoning the policies of the New

Democratic Party, nationally and provincially. We must have restraint

in Canada. We must end the foolishness of the national energy program.

We must abandon, nationally, as we had to abandon provincially, the

driving out of investment money by socialism. Investment dollars are

not ordinary dollars. Investment dollars are super dollars. They're the

dollars that fuel the economy. When investment dollars are there, the

engine speeds up. When they go, the engine coughs and stalls.

What

has happened with the national energy program and FIRA is precisely

what happened with the punitive and ridiculous taxation measures

introduced by the New Democratic Party when they were government in

British Columbia — namely, the flight of investment capital out of the

province.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. member. debate on consolidated fund bills, which is

the debate that we are presently on.... Sir Erskine May clearly says:

"The debate on the stages of these bills must be relevant to each bill,

and must be confined to the conduct or action of those who receive or

administer the grants specified in the bill in the case of an

appropriation bill. In general terms, any questions of administrative

policy may be raised which are implied in such grants of supply." I

propose to the member who is debating that his debate is out of order.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for being out of order, but I did feel an

obligation to respond to the points raised by the member speaking for

the New Democratic Party.

Of course we intend to support

this supply bill. Of course the government expects and anticipates that

it will be able to take measures to protect the economy of British

Columbia and. In so doing, to run at a strong counter-pace to the

backward movement being established by the national government. This is

a time when the economically fit are being tested by tough

international times, brought on, of course, by the points alluded to by

the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

But we

will not recover our economy in British Columbia by going along with

the policies laid down by the national government, or by going along

with the suggestions made by the New Democratic arty members opposite,

because it does no good to continue to spend irresponsibly. It does no

good to cut off primary production, as the member for Coquitlam-Moody

(Mr. Leggatt) would have us do with northeast coal. It does no good to

shut down power development, which will drive the engines of our

economy in British Columbia and would today form our most reliable

export product — power. But the members opposite would have us choke

that off too. The members opposite would be against the largest urban

redevelopment scheme in North America now taking place at B.C. Place.

All

of these things have been put on the record by those members during

debate in this session. Therefore what this little government must do

to further the interests of the people of our province is reject the

policies of the national government. reject the policies of the

national New Democratic Party, reject the policies of the members

opposite, and build the economy of British Columbia, as Social Credit

has a]ways done, on a strong and secure foundation that will allow us

to withstand the storms of international finance.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MCGEER: UIC benefits. I'm glad the member raised

that point, because what it does is illustrate the dilemma always faced

by the members opposite, who are unwilling to acknowledge that there is

a hierarchy in dollars, and that their value is not equal in a

democracy. Dollars are all born equal, like citizens,but their

contribution varies. The least valuable dollars are those that are

sucked out of an economy to pay for non-productive services, because

what they do is penalize productive activity. At the top of the scale

always are the investment dollars, because they precede economic

activity. Then comes primary production. Then come the service

industries to assist primary production. At the bottom of the heap

always are the government expenditures which take away from those

productive activities and have no multiplier effect at all. What we

have to be so careful of, Mr.

[ Page 8632 ]

Speaker,

is to not suck the private sector dry. Unemployment insurance payments,

welfare payments, public services of all kinds, have the least economic

value to society.

We've got to get back to an understanding

in Canada, though it's well understood by this government in British

Columbia, that we will not have economic help until we understand the

value and necessity of productive primary industry. Other countries

have grasped this principle, and they are the ones doing well in the

world today. But when we take things like this for granted, as the New

Democratic Party did when they were government between 1972 and 1975 in

British Columbia, and as the Trudeau government has done during nearly

all its years in office, particularly since it was re-elected with the

help of the New Democratic Party, our country continues to slump. We

have lost self-respect, we have lost respect in international circles,

and our citizens suffer. But here in British Columbia we're going to

run counter to the trend. This government has not lost sight of the

important things, even though the members opposite have never been able

to see them clearly.

Mr. Speaker, we will support this bill.

British Columbia will continue to prosper, relative to other

governments and jurisdictions in Canada and North America, because of

the sound principles followed by Social Credit.

MR. SKELLY:

It's a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate on the second Supply

Act of this Legislature. It's interesting to listen to the two big

guns, as they call them, who have been thrown into the fray by the

government party. It always seems that when there's a far-fetched point

to be made, the second member for Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is

tossed into the match. I think this is a man who has done more than

anyone else in this Legislature, in this province, to cast doubt on the

credibility of the appellation "scientist." It seems that whatever

happens, this member can change his opinion, change his meaning, even

change his political appellation from one day to the next. Today he's

attacking the Liberals with vigour,

whereas a few years ago he was the

leader of the Liberal Party. So anything he says, almost about

anything, should be taken with a grain of salt as to its credibility.

MR. SPEAKER: With that passing comment, we go to Bill 57.

MR. SKELLY:

Simply a passing comment, but the minister did talk about the strength

of the economy. What we're concerned about in dealing with the Supply

Act at this time is the strength of the economy. The minister talks

about the economy of British Columbia leading the way, and yet the

indicators that have been brought forward in this House in question

period and in debate elsewhere have shown that this province is leading

the way in the number of job positions lost, in the increase in the

number of people unemployed, in foreclosures and bankruptcies. In every

single indicator to the negative, this province is leading the way.

The

minister attacked the federal government and in particular some of its

creations — the Foreign Investment Review Agency and the national

energy program. Yes, to the extent that those programs did attempt to

stimulate Canadian investment in the economy, and to give Canadians

control over the fuel that the engine of the economy requires, we did

support them, even though we considered them half-measures with some

possibility of failure. It's interesting that the minister stated in

his speech that as a result of these policies, we have become dependent

on those who control internationally those energy commodities that

we're forced to buy on the world market. It's interesting that those

countries have gained control of those very energy commodities that

have given them the strength and given them the foreign exchange to

become the real foreign investors in the world — those people whose

money we seek because they have taken control of those key commodities

that run the industrial world. He is criticizing Canada for its

half-measures to do the same thing. To the extent that they are

half-measures, Mr. Speaker, yes, we criticize Canada for that. Canada

should be taking control over its industry, and Canada should be taking

control over those valuable energy commodities that we desperately

require if we're to keep this economy going, and going independently of

those countries into the future.

Mr. Speaker, the people I

want to talk about in this debate.... The main reason I want to talk

about those people is that they are now dependent on government

largess. They are dependent on the money that flows from this

government in welfare payments and transfer payments into the

communities of this province. I'm talking about my constituents in Port

Alberni who now depend on the largess of the government for their

survival. The last statistics from Employment Canada show that over

5,000 people formerly working in that community — productive people —

are now out of work. Many of them are without hope of getting work in

the forest industry again. Twelve hundred of those people will be going

on welfare between now and the end of August, and of course welfare is

a significant part of the supply bill that we will be voting for at the

end of this debate.

People in that community have been cut

off extended health benefits, dental plans and prescription drug plans;

cut off wage-loss insurance schemes that they paid for through the

investment of their labour. For all these services they now depend on

premium subsidies and welfare payments from the provincial government —

part and parcel of this bill. And they depend on the grace of the banks

and the lending agencies who are withholding foreclosure actions,

because they cannot recover the investments in the event that they do

foreclose. There is, of course, no protection from this provincial

government, as there is from others across Canada.

Mr.

Speaker, I've always spoken with pride of my constituents. They are

among the most productive and the best-paid workers in this country,

and the best organized in terms of their union organization. To the

extent that they are able to bargain for safe, healthy and secure job

conditions in a safe and healthy job place, they have bargained for and

won those conditions. Within the last few months and within the last

year that job security, that safe and healthy workplace, has been lost

to them. These were also the people, Mr. Chairman, who at one time

contributed in large measure to the revenue side of the provincial

budget, in revenue from the forest resource, in revenue from their own

income taxes and other taxes paid in the form of consumer taxes and

user charges. The people of Port Alberni have always been positive,

contributing citizens in this provincial economy, and in the national

economy. They've had the dignity to pay their own way and then some. To

date, under this government, and under the policies of the national

government as represented in two recent budgets, they have not become

tenants in their own homes. They've lost many of the goods they've

purchased out of the investment of their labour, and they're now

beggars on the provincial government for income support,

[ Page 8633 ]

medical

premiums and that type of thing. It's not a position that the people of

this province pride themselves on being found in. It's not the position

they want to be in, and in fact they would do virtually anything to get

rid of the government that has placed them in that position.

very few years ago the Premier looked at a takeover action that was

being speculated about in the press when MacMillan Bloedel, the major

employer in my riding, was threatened with a takeover from Canadian

Pacific Investments. The Premier came to town and said: "There is

absolutely no way that we will allow this B.C. corporation to be sold

out of the province." Many of the citizens of my riding took the

Premier at his word, a mistake that many people in this province have

made. When the Premier came to them and suggested that they invest in

the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, again they took him at his

word and invested. When the Premier was touting shares around the

province, people in my constituency borrowed money and bought up to the

limit in the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. Taking the Premier

at his word is something they realize now they never should have done.

M&B,

the company that was not for sale when the Premier said that B.C. was

not for sale, was sold outside this province to Noranda, or to Brascan,

or to the Quebec Pension Plan. Who knows who owns it now, but it's

certainly not owned by the people of British Columbia. It's certainly

not managed, from the point of view of my constituents, for the benefit

of the people working in the resource industry of the province of

British Columbia. M&B personnel say to me that, in terms of M&B

being restored to economic health, the first part that's going to come

back is Alabama ,and the second part to come back is going to be the

interior of British Columbia. If it comes back, then the coast will

return to its former economic vigour.

This is not the kind

of positive statement that the people of my constituency are looking

forward to from a company that the Premier said should never be sold

outside of British Columbia. It now appears to be operated in part by

the Quebec Pension Plan. Now we're only a part of a multinational hydra

that seems to be focussed on Alabama and uses places like Port Alberni

as a branch plant to be brought on stream when it's justifiable to the

company's shareholders and dropped when it's not earning a profit or

when market conditions are bad. If only the Foreign Investment Review

Agency were operating in reverse at the time that M&B was investing

outside of the province, using the money that they earned here on the

resources and labour of British Columbian workers, who made the money

for the company so they could invest outside the country. If only the

United States had had a foreign investment review agency at the time

that would have told them: "No,